draw_wedge

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world. The description goes beyond that by disclosing what each mode actually does to voxels ('add...replacing voxels there, growing the part'; 'carve removes the part's voxels inside the shape'), which is real mutation context. It does not address reversibility or authorization, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short and front-loaded, with the mode variants and the geometric consequence stated first and the example last. The mid-sentence line break and the slightly awkward 'as deep as the block goes' phrasing cost a point, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter, 5-required mutation with no output schema, the description covers the shape semantics, the face-edge rule, and the mode effects, while the schema covers all parameter details and annotations cover the safety profile. Gaps (behavior when start/end exceed the part, response format) are minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: it explains that the edge between faces[0] and faces[1] is the removed edge and illustrates with a face pair, clarifying how the two face arguments interact rather than just enumerating their enum values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('add, paint or carve a ramp') and precisely describes the geometry produced: the block from start..end cut diagonally. It is clearly distinct from draw_box/draw_cylinder/draw_ellipsoid in behavior, but never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The three modes are described in the schema, and the description supplies a concrete worked example (hood sloping to the front, faces ['top','front']), which implies usage. However it never says when to choose a wedge over cut_edges or draw_box/cylinder, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.